The Science of Aging

Computers, internet, mobile devices, software, cameras, gadgets, etc.

Re: The Science of Aging

Postby mrgreen » Sat Oct 20, 2018 8:04 am

surfsteve: You're argument is muddled and you confuse two different issues: 1) The misuse of a technology, 2) The validity of a technology. Just because a technology can be misused does not make it invalid. Just because a technology is valid, does not mean it cannot be misused. The point that is pertinent here is the validity of genetic science. If it is invalid, then please account for CRISPR and knockout mice.
User avatar
mrgreen
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:09 pm
Location: NO PLACE IN PARTICULAR

Re: The Science of Aging

Postby cactuspete » Sat Oct 20, 2018 8:54 am

mrgreen wrote:surfsteve: You're argument is muddled and you confuse two different issues: 1) The misuse of a technology, 2) The validity of a technology. Just because a technology can be misused does not make it invalid. Just because a technology is valid, does not mean it cannot be misused. The point that is pertinent here is the validity of genetic science. If it is invalid, then please account for CRISPR and knockout mice.

... or GMOs for that matter. If it was all junk science, then why are we able to change physical characteristics of plants and animals by inserting genes? If we can change physical characteristics by inserting genes, then genes don't just simply correlate to those traits, they have obviously been shown to cause physically observable changes. Comparing genetic science to "chronology" is in a word simply... STUPID!
User avatar
cactuspete
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:14 am
Location: The Boonies

Re: The Science of Aging

Postby surfsteve » Sat Oct 20, 2018 9:55 am

I can't but help think you guys are starting to take what I said out of context. There are many that call nutrition junk science. If They can do that than surely I can refer to DNA analysis in the same manor. I guess I shouldn't be arguing with the science as much as the way it is being interpreted once it becomes influenced by politics and money. I even said in my post literally that I wasn't saying it was junk science but later on I did compare it and in the way I mentioned it has the potential to be i.e. once it becomes tainted with politics and money. If you take the example of the talk show I was listening to in the post before that one they mentioned that only 66% of a trait for a snip was needed in order for it to be referred to as a trait. Yes there are traits in mice that are over 99% relevant but 66% in my opinion is not enough to form an opinion let alone state something as fact.

surfsteve wrote:I still maintain that the genome is at the stage chronology was at, during WWII. Chronology has been dismissed as junk science yet let's face it we can all look at some people and tell that they are retarded or a basket case or a mean person or a nice person. The problem is we will be right most of the time but not all of the time. Reading the genome is the same way. A certain number of people will have a marker or snip or whatever you want to call it at a certain place in their genome and tend to exhibit a certain trait but it's not guaranteed. It could be in 66% of all cases or perhaps in rare instances over 99% of the time but it will not always be 100% correct. I'm not saying DNA should be dismissed as junk science but then neither should chronology and I suspect even though it has been that it's probably because most of the worlds most powerful people are psychopaths and rather than be discovered have influenced science to dismiss chronology entirely. All that needs to happen is for DNA science to progress to the point that commonalities between psychopaths and leaders be discovered and understood by the general public and watch how fast DNA analysis goes away and becomes dismissed. Right now it is in it's infancy and not quite understood so many people will believe whatever they are told about it without understanding what is actually going on. In a way this is also junk science and could be used against us as in innocent assumptions that later on prove not to be correct or at least as correct as we are led to believe. There are primitive societies that believe in bone pointing because when a medicine man points a bone at someone they wish to get rid of they nearly always die, yet this rarely works in modern societies that don't believe in it. There is a real danger that people will start believing in DNA much like primitive societies believe in bone pointing and that instead of indicating traits they could actually be causing them due to the superstitious tendency of people to believe in things that they don't quite understand.
Make Trona great again!
surfsteve
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 2077
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:57 am
Location: everywhere

Re: The Science of Aging

Postby surfsteve » Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:47 am

Cancer Lives On Sugar AND...Something Else
Make Trona great again!
surfsteve
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 2077
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:57 am
Location: everywhere

Re: The Science of Aging

Postby cactuspete » Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:17 pm

Two replies:
1) Most traits are the result of interaction between many genes. There are few one-to-one connections between genes and physical traits. So, why would you expect 100% correlation between a gene and a condition or physical trait?
2) oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes
User avatar
cactuspete
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:14 am
Location: The Boonies

Re: The Science of Aging

Postby recluse » Sat Oct 20, 2018 6:48 pm

6 Common Misconceptions About Cancer
Lots of misinformation regarding cancer. Eric Berg seems to be contributing to that problem.
User avatar
recluse
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:48 am
Location: where you'd least expect

Re: The Science of Aging

Postby surfsteve » Sun Oct 21, 2018 7:13 am

The guy is right. Just because something sounds like it makes sense doesn't mean it actually does. Though maybe he should be taking a bit of his own advise. Also didn't Berg also mention a 2nd thing besides sugar? (Of course he did.)

Side note: Don't be so quick to believe all those saying meat causes cancer. Man has been living on mostly meat since the ice age and cancer has only risen drastically in very recent times. Fact is cancer feeds on sugar. It is also true that even if you don't eat any sugar that your body will make it's own (just like cholesterol) though excluding some rare condition I suspect it will not make more than it needs.

I know there are graphs that nearly exactly correlate specific diseases with the rise of consumption of specific types of “foods”. Sugar in high fructose corn syrup and diabetes come to mind and I am aware of hydrogenated vegetable oils (margarine and Crisco) but can't remember exactly what diseases at the moment. Sugar also falls pretty close to the development of most modern diseases. Like the last post said there isn't one particular cause; but if you want to go around ignoring the consumption of all these things and assume all these modern diseases have nothing to do with it you must either be a doctor or stupid in my opinion. I can't help thinking if we put a similar amount of resources into studying nutrition that we do modern diseases that we wouldn't be light years ahead of where we are right now. The medical field is consumed with running tests, the vast majority of which seem to be absolutely useless but extremely profitable.

On one end of the spectrum we have Dr. Berg who looks very healthy to me and far younger than is actual age and on the other end we have Dr. Gregor who is young enough to be my son and looks old enough to be my father, preaching a vegan diet will cure anything but never seems to mention a word about sugar or what exactly to eat on this diet. Correct me if I am wrong but coffee and doughnuts are vegan and I suspect if you eat to many of them you will wind up looking more like Dr. Gregor than Dr. Berg.

To CactusPete: It's not the nearly 100% correlations I am worried about. It's the ones that are only 66%.
Make Trona great again!
surfsteve
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 2077
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:57 am
Location: everywhere

Re: The Science of Aging

Postby cactuspete » Sun Oct 21, 2018 8:00 am

Polygenic Inheritance
Most traits are controlled by several genes. So, any given gene may only be responsible for five to ten percent of the trait. Monogenic inheritance is the exception, not the norm.
Polygenic inheritance occurs when one characteristic is controlled by two or more genes. Often the genes are large in quantity but small in effect. Examples of human polygenic inheritance are height, skin color, eye color and weight. Polygenes exist in other organisms, as well. Drosophila, for instance, display polygeny with traits such as wing morphology, bristle count (20170808 dead link) and many others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygene
User avatar
cactuspete
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:14 am
Location: The Boonies

Re: Quack Alert

Postby sandman » Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:16 am

Eric Berg sounds like a total quack to me. More of a snake oil salesman than a medical professinal.
User avatar
sandman
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:31 pm
Location: NEVER NEVER LAND

Re: The Science of Aging

Postby camel » Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:39 am

When it comes to aging and cancer and all the other things that afflict older people, there are many snake oil sales people. Many people prey upon the sick and the elderly. It seems to only be getting worse.
Would you walk a mile for me?
User avatar
camel
Lonesome Miner
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:16 am
Location: Vast ocean of sand

PreviousNext

Return to Technology and Gadgets

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron